Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
Quezon City
FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session
i 1799
House Bill No.
Introduced by GABRIELA Women’s Party
Representatives LUZVIMINDA C. LAGAN and EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Underpinning this proposal is a commitment to the policy of the State to protect and
strengthen marriage and the family as basic social institutions, to value the dignity of every
human person, to guarantee full respect for human rights, and to ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men.
in the Filipino culture, marriage is regarded as a sacred union, and the family founded
on marriage is considered as a fount of love, protection and care. Philippine society generally
frowns upon and discourages marital break-ups and so provides cultural and legal safeguards to
preserve marital relations. Cultural prescriptions and religious norms keep many couple:
together despite the breakdown of the marriage. But the cultural prescriptions for women and
men differ. Women are traditionally regarded as primarily responsible for making the marriage
work and are expected to sacrifice everything to preserve the marriage and the solidarity of the
tamuly, While absolute fidelity is demanded of wives, men are granted sexual license to have
altairs outside marriage. Yet when the marriage fails, the woman is blamed for its failure.
Reality tells us that there are many failed, unhappy marriages across all Filipino classes
Many couples especially from the marginalized sectors, who have no access to the courts
simply end up separating without the benefit of legal processes. The sheer number of petitions
that have been filed since 1988 for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code (commonly known as “annulment*) shows that there are just (oo many
couples who are desperate to get out of failed marriages,
Even when couples start out well in their marriage, political, economic and social
realities take their toll on their relationship. Some are not prepared to handle the intricacies of
the married life. For a large number of women, the inequalities and violence in marriage
negate its ideals as the embodiment of love, care and safety and erode the bases upon which a
martiage is founded. The marital relations facilitate the commission of violence and perpetuate
their oppression. Official figures in 2009 showed that nineteen women were victims of marital
violence everyday. Among the different forms of violence and abuse against women
committed in 2009, wife battery ranked highest at 6,783 or 72% according to the Philippine
National Police (PNP), The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) likewise
recorded marital violence as highest among different forms of violence against women at
1,933. Previous reports of the PNP about three of ten perpetrators of violence against women
were husbands of the victims. Husbands accounted for 28 per cent of the violence against
women crimes.Given these realities, couples must have the option to avail of remedies that will pave
the way for the attainment of their full human development and self-fulfillment and the
protection of their human rights. Existing laws are not enough to guarantee and protect these
nights. To quote the Women's Legal Bureau, Inc., a legal resource NGO for women
“The present laws relating to separation of couples and termination of
marriage are inadequate to respond to the myriad causes of failed marriages.
Particularly, the remedies of declaration of nullity and annulment do not cover
the problems that occur during the existence of marriage. Legal separation, on
the other hand, while covering problems during marriage, does not put an end to
marriage.”
“though both divorce and a declaration of nullity of a marriage allow the
spouses fo remarry, the two remedies differ in concept and basis. A declaration
of nullity presupposes that the marriage is void fram the beginning and the court
declares its non-existence... Beyond [the] grounds specified [in the saw),
declaration of nullity is not possible.”
“In annulment, the marriage of the parties is declared defective from the
beginning, albeit it is considered valid until annulled. The defect can be used to
nullify the marriage within a specified period but the same may be ignored and
the macriage becomes perfectly valid after the lapse of that period, or the defect
may be cured through some act. The defect relates to the time of the celebration
of the marriage and has nothing to do with circumstances occurring after the
marriage is celebrated. In annulment, the marriage is legally cancelled, and the
man and woman are restored to their single status.”
“Since August 3, 1988, couples have been given a way out of failed
marriages through Article 36 of the Family Code... The remedy provided under
Article 36 is declaration of nullity of the marriage. The article voids a marriage
where one party is “psychologically incapacitated" to comply with the essentials
of marital obligations. Consistent with the concept of void marriages (where the
remedy is declaration of nullity), the law requires that the incapacity must have
existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage... In practice, Article 36 has
become a form of divorce, as valid marriages are declared void every day in the
guise of “psychological incapacity.” The innumerable Article 36 cases brought to
tial courts is an indication of the elasticity of Article 36 to accommodate the
needs of many couples desiring to terminate their marriages. It 1s proof thar
divorce is needed in the Philippines. Article 36 provides a remedy only for spouses
who can prove “psychological incapacity”. The concept certainly cannot
accommodate all cases where divorce would be necessary. What we need is a
divorce law that defines clearly and unequivocally the grounds and terms for
terminating a marriage. That law will put an end to the creative efforts played
daily in courtrooms across the country to accommodate a wide range of cases in
order to prove “psychological incapacity.” (Women's Legal Bureau, Inc., The
Relevance of Divorce in the Philippines, 1998)
Thus, this bill seeks to introduce divorce as another option for couples in failed and
irreparable marriagesThis bill was crafted in consultation with women lawyers and inspired by the studies and
uiputs of various women's groups and the experiences of spouses gathered by GABRICLA from
Hs various chapters nationwide
The bill seeks to introduce divorce in Philippine law with a strong sense of confidence
that it will be used responsibly by Filipino couples. This confidence stems feom the exp
of Filipina families that show that separation is usually the last resort of many Filipino couples
whose martiage has failed. Cases of battered women also support this. Battered women
‘variably seek separation only after many years of trying to make the marriage work
separation only becomes imperative for them when they realize that it is necessary for their
wid their children's survival. Divorce could actually provide protection to battered women and
their children from further violence and abuse. With the predominance of the Catholic faith in
the Philippines, the fear that divorce will erode personal values on marriage appear
unfounded. The experience of Italy, where the Vatican is located, and Spain, two predominantly
Catholic countries which practice divorce, supports this. Those countries have a low rate of
slvorce. Italy registers a 7% rate while Spain registers 15%. The figures reflect the strong
influence of religious beliefs and culture on individuals in deciding to terminate marital
relations,
Historically, divorce had been part of our legal system. In the beginning of the 16."
century, before the Spanish colonial rule, absolute divorce was widely practiced among
ancestral tribes such as the Tagbanwas of Palawan, the Gadangs of Nueva Vizcaya, the
Sagadans and Igorots of the Cordilleras, and the Manobos, B'laans and Moslems of the Visaya
and Mindanao islands. Divorce was also available during the American period, starting from
1917 under Act No. 2710 enacted by the Philippine Legislature), and during the Japanese
occupation (under Executive Order No. 141) and after, until 1950. It was only on August 30,
1950, when the New Civil Code took effect, that divorce was disallowed under Philippine law
Only legal separation was available. The same rule was adopted by the Family Code of 1988,
wshich replaced the provisions of the New Civil Code on marriage and the family, although the
Family Code introduced the concept of "psychological incapacity” as a basis for declaring the
marriage void
In recognition of the history of divorce in the Philippines, the framers of the 1987
Philippine Constitution left the wisdom of legalizing divorce to the Congress. Thus, the 1987
Constitution does not prohibit the legalization of divorce.
This bill is respectful of and sensitive to differing religious beliefs in the Philippines. It
recognizes that the plurality of religious beliefs and cultural sensibilities in the Philippines
demand that different remedies for failed marriages should be made available. For this reason,
the bill retains the existing remedies of legal separation, declaration of nullity of the marriage
and annulment and only adds divorce as one more remedy. Couples may choose fram these
remedies depending on their situation, religious beliefs, cultural sensibilities, needs and
emotional state, While divorce under this proposed measure severs the bonds of marriage,
divorce as a remedy need not be for the purpose of re-marriage; it may be resorted to by
individuals to achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full human development
This bill also seeks to make Philippine law consistent in the way it treats religious beliefs with
respect to termination of marriage. Philippine law through the Code of Muslim Personal Laws
of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1083 (1977)) allows divorce among Filipino Muslims,
in deference to the Islamic faith which recognizes divorce. Non-Muslim Filipinos should have
the same option under Philippine law, in accordance with their religious beliefs,The bill proposes five grounds for divorce. All the five grounds are premised on the
irreparable breakdown of the marriage and the total non-performance of marital obligations
Thus, the bill provides that a petition for divorce may be filed when the petitioner has been
eparated de facto (in fact) from his or her spouse for at least five years at the time of the filing
of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable, or when the petitioner has been legally
sparated from his or her spouse for at least two years at the time of the filing of the petition
snd reconciliation is highly improbable.
‘Not all circumstances and situations that cause the total breakdown of a marriage could
be defined in this proposed measure, Thus, the bill also provides that divorce may be granted
when the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable
bivakdown of the marriage. Spouses living in a state of irreparable marital conflict or discord
should be given the opportunity to present their marital contrarieties in court and have those
differences adjudged as constituting a substantial ground to put an end to the marriage
Another ground for divorce included in the bill is when one or both spouses are
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. This provision
will consequently repeal Article 36 of the Family Code. The bill seeks to include "psychological
incapacity" in the grounds for divorce in the belief that the concept is consistent with the
tenmmation of marital ties rather than with a void marriage
The bill seeks to eliminate "condonation of the act” and "consent to the act" as grounds
lor denying a petition for legal separation and, by extension, a petition for divorce. Many
spouses especially women ignore the offense because of the social and economic conditions
they are in, Many women in the marginalized sectors tend to condone the offense because
they are economically dependent on their spouses or because of the stigma attached to failed
marriages. Some women who are perceived to be condoning the acts of their husbands
actually suffer from the cycle of spousal abuse such that they have become so disempowered
to address their situation
Under this proposed measure, a decree of divorce dissolves the absolute community or
conjugal partnership of gains. The assets shall be equally divided between the spouses.
However, this bill also proposes that in addition to his or her equal share in the assets, the
spouse who is not gainfully employed shall be entitled to support until he or she finds adequate
employment but the right shall only be effective for not more than one year. This provision is
meant to address the economic deprivation or poverty that many women experience as a result
of a marital break-up.
The bill also proposes that the custody of any minor child shall be decided by the court
accordance with the best interests of the child and their support provided in accordance with
the Family Court provisions on support. Actual, moral and exemplary damages shall be awarded
to the aggrieved spouse when proper in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code on
damages. The proposed measure also provides that parties shall be disqualified from inheriting,
trom each other by intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of one spouse made in
the will of the other spouse shall be revoked by operation of law.
The Philippines and Malta are the only two remaining countries in the world without @
divorce law. This bill is being introduced based on indications that Philippine society is ready for
the legalization of divorce
The sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the
quality of marital relationships. When a marriage is no longer viable, divorce should be an
optionThus, the approval of this bill is urgently requested,
y fue hy
agnor C.